CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 5 février 2009

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s598389FF { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:18pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s491F5244 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#ff0000 } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBA727180 { width:35.3pt; display:inline-block } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sC443675D { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sD2857263 { margin-top:30pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s11869A80 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s684F2214 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s25BD2B45 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s984A15CA { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA964683B { font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:1.2pt } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sC702907E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s8F4EE4B8 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s9F223FEE { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s3B3A5DE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s27210F8D { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; text-transform:uppercase } .s93EDF1FF { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s3C0142D3 { margin-top:30pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7EE1C8F0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s507703F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA1CDB767 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s281358E1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s8A9F351B { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s804EF768 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s1913A4C6 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sB6F98828 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s360DA689 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s8378218E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sB1BD30C0 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s8E011338 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s56E27C8 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sAB173E38 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .s127C7598 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sD66C1369 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s60723A49 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:39.7pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s81CCF55C { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .s48DB3670 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s507451D6 { width:4.53pt; display:inline-block } .sE78773ED { width:216.11pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 }       FIRST SECTION           CASE OF IDALOVA AND IDALOV v. RUSSIA   (Application no. 41515/04)               JUDGMENT   This version was rectified on 8 July 2009 under Rule 81 of the Rules of the Court   STRASBOURG   5 February 2009   FINAL   05/06/2009   This judgment may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Idalova and Idalov v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Christos Rozakis, President,   Nina Vajić,   Anatoly Kovler,   Elisabeth Steiner,   Khanlar Hajiyev,   Giorgio Malinverni,   George Nicolaou, judges, and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar , Having deliberated in private on 15 January 2009, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the last ‑ mentioned date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in an application (no. 41515/04) against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by two Russian nationals, Ms Adeni Abumuslimovna Idalova [1] and Mr Agdulmusum Abdulkhalimovich Idalov (“the applicants”), on 6 October 2004. 2.     The applicants were represented by lawyers of the Stichting Russian Justice Initiative (“SRJI”), an NGO based in the Netherlands with a representative office in Russia. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Ms V. Milinchuk, former Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights. 3.     On 12 June 2007 the Court decided to apply Rule   41 of the Rules of Court and to give notice of the application to the Government. It also decided to examine the merits of the application at the same time as its admissibility (Article 29 § 3). 4.     The Government objected to the joint examination of the admissibility and merits of the application. Having considered the Government's objection, the Court dismissed it. THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 5.     The applicants were born in 1952 and 1949 respectively. At the material time they lived in the village of Akhkinchu-Borzoy, in the Kurchaloy District of the Chechen Republic. They are currently residing in the village of Noyber, in the Gudermes District of the Chechen Republic. 6.     The applicants are the parents of Mr Marvan Agdulmusumovich Idalov, born in 1985. They also have three other sons: Khizir, Vakhid and Alikhan Idalov. A.     Disappearance of Marvan Idalov 1.     The applicants' account 7.     At the material time Marvan Idalov was a student at a secondary school. A certificate issued by the local authorities confirmed that Marvan Idalov had not participated in any illegal armed groups. 8.     According to inhabitants of Akhkinchu-Borzoy, special military unit no.   24 of the Russian Ministry of the Defence («24-е стрелковое спецподразделение МО РФ» , hereinafter “military unit no.   24”) was based near their village in 2002. 9.     On the night of 21 to 22 November 2002 the applicants and Marvan Idalov were sleeping at their family home. Early in the morning the first applicant went outside the house to perform an ablution. 10.     At about 6 a.m. an armoured personnel carrier (“APC”), an infantry battle vehicle (“IBV”) and a Ural vehicle arrived at the Idalovs' house; a group of armed men wearing camouflage uniforms and masks descended from them. The first applicant inferred that the men belonged to the Russian military. 11.     The servicemen started breaking the entrance door and windows. The first applicant asked them why they were doing so. In reply the servicemen shouted at her and forced her to enter the house. 12.     Meanwhile five or six servicemen broke into the house without producing any documents or search warrants. The first applicant saw the faces of two unmasked servicemen who had Slavic features; they spoke Russian without an accent. The servicemen hit the second applicant, tied his arms behind his back, forced him to the floor and pointed a machine gun at him. 13.     Marvan Idalov was studying when the servicemen entered his room. They tied his arms, put a sack on his head and took him to the street. It appears that they then put Marvan Idalov in one of the vehicles parked at the house and left. Some neighbours submitted that the vehicles drove away in the direction of the base of military unit no.   24. 2.     Information submitted by the Government 14.     According to the decision of the district prosecutor's office of 20   December 2004 to grant the second applicant victim status in criminal case no. 44034, on 22 November 2002 at least ten unidentified armed men wearing camouflage uniforms and masks travelling in an APC, an IBV and a lorry with an anti-aircraft gun on it unlawfully entered the applicants' house, kidnapped Marvan Idalov and took him away to an unknown destination. B.     The search for Marvan Idalov and the investigation 1.     The applicants' account 15 .     Immediately after their son's abduction the applicants requested information on his whereabouts from the head of special military unit no.   24, Mr K., who replied that the military servicemen under his command had not carried out any special operations in the morning of 22 November 2002 and had not apprehended Marvan Idalov. 16 .     The applicants continued searching for their son. They applied to various official bodies, such as the prosecutors' offices at different levels, the departments of the interior, the Administration of the Chechen Republic, the Russian State Duma and the Special Envoy of the Russian President in the Chechen Republic for Rights and Freedoms, asking to help them to find Marvan Idalov. In their efforts the applicants were assisted by the SRJI. It appears that those complaints were futile. 17.     On 26 February 2003 the first applicant complained about her son's disappearance to the military prosecutor's office of the United Group Alignment (“the UGA prosecutor's office”). 18.     On 27 March 2003 the military prosecutor's office of military unit no.   20116 (“the prosecutor's office of unit no. 20116”) sent a letter to the UGA prosecutor's office and the first applicant concerning Marvan Idalov's disappearance. The copy of the letter submitted to the Court is illegible. 19.     On 31 March 2003 the prosecutor's office of unit no. 20116 sent a letter to the UGA prosecutor's office and the second applicant concerning Marvan Idalov's disappearance. The copy of the letter submitted to the Court is illegible. 20.     On 3 April 2003 the prosecutor's office of the Chechen Republic forwarded the first applicant's complaint about her son's disappearance to the prosecutor's office of the Kurchaloy District of the Chechen Republic (“the district prosecutor's office”). 21.     On 27 May 2003 the district prosecutor's office invited the first applicant to send her queries concerning her son's kidnapping to the prosecutor's office of unit no. 20116. 22 .     On 5 November 2003 the UGA prosecutor's office informed the first applicant that an inquiry into her son's alleged kidnapping by unidentified military servicemen had been carried out. The inquiry established that on 22   November 2002 the Russian military had not organised any special operations and had not apprehended Marvan Idalov. No traces of military personnel implication in Marvan Idalov's kidnapping had been found. 23.     On 13 November 2003 the North-Caucasus Operational Department of the Main Department of the Russian Ministry of the Interior for the Southern Federal Circuit informed the first applicant that it had verified the facts relating to her son's disappearance and had sent the collected materials to the prosecutor's office of the Chechen Republic. 24.     On 8 December 2003 the SRJI wrote to the district prosecutor's office, the prosecutor's office of the Chechen Republic and the prosecutor's office of unit no. 20116, requesting them to inform it whether an investigation into Marvan Idalov's disappearance had been instituted and, if so, to provide details on the course of the investigation and to grant the first applicant the status of victim of a crime. 25.     On 2 February 2004 the prosecutor's office of the Chechen Republic replied to the SRJI that Marvan Idalov had not been apprehended by servicemen of the department of the interior of the Kurchaloy District (“ROVD”) or kept in the temporary detention facility of the ROVD. They further noted that the prosecutor's office of unit no. 20116 had inquired into Marvan Idalov's kidnapping. 26.     On 1 June 2004 the SRJI repeated their requests concerning Marvan Idalov's fate to the district prosecutor's office and to the prosecutor's office of unit no. 20116. 27.     On 5 August 2004 the prosecutor's office of the Chechen Republic instituted an investigation into the disappearance of Marvan Idalov under Article 126 § 2 of the Russian Criminal Code (aggravated kidnapping) and ordered the district prosecutor's office to assign a number   to the case file. On 6 August 2004 they informed the first applicant accordingly and invited her to send further queries to the district prosecutor's office. 28.     On 4 October 2004 the SRJI wrote to the district prosecutor's office and to the prosecutor's office of unit no. 20116, repeating their requests of 8   December 2003 and 1 June 2004. 29.     On 21 October 2004 the prosecutor's office of the Chechen Republic informed the SRJI that it had instituted criminal proceedings in relation to Marvan Idalov's disappearance and that the investigation was under way. 30.     On 13 November 2004 the prosecutor's office of unit no. 20116 forwarded the SRJI's complaint about Marvan Idalov's kidnapping to the military prosecutor's office of military unit no. 20102 (“the prosecutor's office of unit no. 20102”) and requested that the SRJI submit a detailed description of the crime to that office. 31.     On 27 November 2004 the prosecutor's office of unit no. 20116 forwarded the SRJI's complaint to the military prosecutor's office of military unit no. 20119 (“the prosecutor's office of unit no. 20119”) and requested that the SRJI submit a detailed description of Marvan Idalov's kidnapping to that office. 32.     On 26 January 2005 the district prosecutor's office granted the first applicant victim status in case no. 44034, instituted in relation to Marvan Idalov's kidnapping by unidentified armed persons. On the same date the second applicant was informed of the decision to grant him the status of victim of a crime in case no. 44034, issued by the district prosecutor's office on an unspecified date. 33.     On 26 March 2005 the prosecutor's office of unit no. 20116 forwarded the SRJI's complaint about Marvan Idalov's kidnapping to the prosecutor's office of unit no. 20102. 34.     On 4 April 2005 the SRJI sent the prosecutor's office of unit no.   20102 information on Marvan Idalov's kidnapping as requested by the prosecutor's office of unit no. 20116. 35.     On 1 June 2005 the prosecutor's office of unit no. 20119 forwarded the SRJI's letter to the prosecutor's office of unit no. 20116. 36.     On 9 August 2005 the prosecutor's office of unit no. 20102 informed the SRJI that there was no evidence of the implication of military personnel in the crime and that the investigation should therefore be carried out by a civilian prosecutor's office. 37.     On 15 August 2005 the SRJI requested the district prosecutor's office, the prosecutor's office of the Chechen Republic and the prosecutor's office of unit no.   20116 to inform it of the state of the proceedings instituted in relation to Marvan Idalov's kidnapping. 38.     On 5 October 2005 the prosecutor's office of the Chechen Republic informed the SRJI that the first applicant had been granted victim status and that she would be updated on progress in the investigation. 39.     On 2 August 2007 the Ministry of the Interior of the Chechen Republic forwarded the applicants' letter dated 25 July 2007 to the ROVD and requested it to search for Marvan Idalov and his kidnappers more actively and to inform the applicants of measures taken. 40.     On 17 August 2007 the ROVD informed the applicants that the investigation into the kidnapping of Marvan and Alikhan Idalov in case no.   44034 had been commenced on 5 August 2004 and that investigative measures were being taken to solve the crime. 41.     On 30 August 2007 the district prosecutor's office informed the applicants that the investigation into the kidnapping of Marvan Idalov had been resumed on 30 September 2007. 2.     Information submitted by the Government 42 .     On 13 December 2003 the district prosecutor's office received a complaint by the first applicant dated 29 August 2003 and addressed to the Administration of the President of Russia. According to the complaint, on an unspecified date during the month of Sawm unidentified men wearing camouflage uniforms and masks had entered the Idalovs' house in the village of Akhkinchu-Borzoy and kidnapped Marvan Idalov. 43.     On 18 December 2003 the district prosecutor's office ordered the ROVD to ensure the first applicant's appearance before the investigators, to collect depositions by her relatives and to examine the scene of the incident. 44.     Later the ROVD reported that the first applicant's whereabouts were unknown and that her neighbours had no information concerning the merits of her complaint. 45.     On 23 January 2004 the district prosecutor's office informed the prosecutor's office of the Chechen Republic that it was impossible to give a decision on the first applicant's complaint owing to the failure to establish her whereabouts or to find any evidence of the facts complained of. 46.     On an unspecified date the temporary department of the interior of the Kurchaloy District (“VOVD”) informed the district prosecutor's office of the following. They had established that Vakhid and Alikhan Idalov had been active members of illegal armed groups and that Marvan Idalov had been an accomplice of insurgents. Vakhid Idalov had been killed in June 2000 in a fight with federal servicemen. Alikhan and Marvan Idalov had not been arrested by the VOVD servicemen and had been hiding from the federal authorities. 47.     Several residents of Akhkinchu-Borzoy informed the investigation that three of the first applicant's sons had been involved in unlawful activities of illegal armed groups. 48 .     On 23 April 2004 the district prosecutor's office decided on the basis of the inquiry's results to refuse to institute criminal proceedings in the absence of any crime. 49.     On 5 August 2004 the prosecutor's office of the Chechen Republic quashed the decision of 23 April 2004 and ordered the district prosecutor's office to institute an investigation into Marvan Idalov's abduction under Article 126 § 2 of the Russian Criminal Code (aggravated kidnapping). 50 .     On 20 December 2004 the second applicant was granted victim status and questioned. He submitted that Marvan Idalov had been kidnapped on 22 November 2002 by unknown persons in masks. 51 .     On 26 January 2005 the first applicant was granted victim status and questioned. She made a statement similar to that by her husband. 52 .     The investigators requested information from law-enforcement agencies of the Chechen Republic and were told in reply that Marvan Idalov had not been arrested, prosecuted or held in any detention facilities and that no special operations had been carried out in Akhkinchu-Borzoy on 22   November 2002. 53.     The Idalovs' relatives and neighbours were questioned in the course of the investigation and submitted that they had no information concerning the circumstances of Marvan Idalov's kidnapping. 54.     On 15 February 2005 the district prosecutor's office suspended the investigation in case no. 44034 concerning the kidnapping of Marvan Idalov on 22 November 2002 on account of the failure to identify those responsible and notified the applicants accordingly. 55.     On 21 May 2005 the district prosecutor's office resumed the investigation in case no. 44034 and notified the applicants accordingly. 56.     The investigation in case no. 44034 was suspended on 21 June 2005 and then resumed on 15 October 2005. 57.     On 15 November 2005 the district prosecutor's office again suspended the investigation. 58.     On 30 August 2007 the district prosecutor's office resumed the investigation in case no. 44034. 59.     The Government submitted a copy of an undated document entitled “Explanation”, signed with the name of the first applicant and addressed to the prosecutor's office of the Chechen Republic. The document stated that in May 2000 a group of servicemen had found bags with firearms and ammunition in a cemetery in Akhkinchu-Borzoy near the Idalovs' house. The first applicant had been detained for questioning for some time. Then she had found out that her son Vakhid had been killed in unknown circumstances. In December 2000 her son Alikhan had gone to the forest with insurgents. Two or three months later he had returned home and started hiding from the authorities. Then he had tried to flee the country and to go to Turkey. The first applicant had no information on his whereabouts. He might have been arrested by federal servicemen. At about 5.30 a.m. on 22   November 2002 the first applicant had seen an APC, an IBV and a vehicle fitted with an anti-aircraft gun arriving at her house. Around ten armed men had entered the house; all the men but one had been wearing masks, and the unmasked man was tall and had red hair. The armed men had taken away Marvan Idalov. The first applicant had told of the kidnapping to officials of the district prosecutor's office whom she had seen on the VOVD premises. 60.     The investigation failed to identify the perpetrators. The involvement of federal troops in the kidnapping was not proven. The investigation was suspended several times owing to the failure to identify those responsible and was then resumed in order to verify certain items of information. It was pending under the supervision of the Russian Prosecutor General's Office. 61.     Despite specific requests by the Court, the Government did not disclose most of the contents of the file in criminal case no.   44034, providing only copies of the first applicant's “explanation”, several witnesses' interviews, decisions to grant the applicants victim status and a few notifications to the applicants concerning the suspension and resumption of the investigation. Relying on the information obtained from the Prosecutor General's Office, the Government stated that the investigation was in progress and that disclosure of the documents would be in violation of Article 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, since the file contained information of a military nature and personal data concerning the witnesses or other participants in the criminal proceedings. II.     RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW 62.     For a summary of relevant domestic law see Akhmadova and Sadulayeva v. Russia , no. 40464/02, §   67-69, 10   May 2007. THE LAW I.     The government's objection REGARDING ABUSE OF THE RIGHT OF PETITION 63.     The Government submitted that the application had not been lodged in order to restore the allegedly violated rights of the applicants. The actual object and purpose of the application was clearly political as the applicants wanted to accuse the Russian Federation of being a State which allegedly carried out a policy of violation of human rights in the Chechen Republic. The Government concluded that there had been an abuse of the right of petition on the part of the applicants and that the application should be dismissed pursuant to Article 35   §   3 of the Convention. 64.     The Court observes that the complaints the applicants brought to its attention concerned their genuine grievances. Nothing in the case file reveals any appearance of an abuse of their right of individual petition. Accordingly, the Government's objection must be dismissed. II.     The government's objection regarding LOCUS STANDI 65.     The Government suggested that the applicants had probably been unaware of the contents of the application form, which had been signed not by the applicants, but by the lawyers working for SRJI. 66.     In so far as the Government may be understood to claim a lack of locus standi in the present case, the Court observes that the applicants gave the SRJI powers of attorney, thus duly authorising this NGO to represent their interests in the Strasbourg proceedings, and in particular to sign on their behalf application forms submitted to the Registry. There are no grounds to believe that the applicants issued those powers of attorney against their will. Accordingly, the Government's objection must be dismissed. III.     The government's objection regarding non-exhaustion of domestic remedies A.     The parties' submissions 67.     The Government contended that the complaint should be declared inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. They submitted that the investigation of the disappearance of Marvan Idalov had not yet been completed. They further argued that it had been open to the applicants to challenge in court or before higher prosecutors any actions or omissions of the investigating authorities, but that the applicants had not availed themselves of that remedy. They also argued that the applicants could have brought civil claims for damages but had failed to do so. 68.     The applicants contested that objection. They stated that the criminal investigation and other remedies had proved to be ineffective. B.     The Court's assessment 69.     The Court reiterates that the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention obliges applicants to use first the remedies which are available and sufficient in the domestic legal system to enable them to obtain redress for the breaches alleged. The existence of the remedies must be sufficiently certain both in theory and in practice, failing which they will lack the requisite accessibility and effectiveness. Article 35 § 1 also requires that complaints intended to be brought subsequently before the Court should have been made to the appropriate domestic body, at least in substance and in compliance with the formal requirements and time-limits laid down in domestic law and, further, that any procedural means that might prevent a breach of the Convention should have been used. However, there is no obligation to have recourse to remedies which are inadequate or ineffective (see Aksoy v. Turkey , 18 December 1996, §§   51 ‑ 52, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-VI; and, most recently, Cennet Ayhan and Mehmet Salih Ayhan v. Turkey , no. 41964/98, § 64, 27   June 2006). 70.     It is incumbent on the respondent Government claiming non-exhaustion to indicate to the Court with sufficient clarity the remedies to which the applicants have not had recourse and to satisfy the Court that the remedies were effective and available in theory and in practice at the relevant time, that is to say that they were accessible, were capable of providing redress in respect of the applicant's complaints and offered reasonable prospects of success (see Cennet Ayhan and Mehmet Salih Ayhan , cited above,   §   65). 71.     The Court notes that the Russian legal system provides, in principle, two avenues of recourse for the victims of illegal and criminal acts attributable to the State or its agents, namely civil and criminal remedies. 72.     As regards a civil action to obtain redress for damage sustained through the alleged illegal acts or unlawful conduct of State agents, the Court has already found in a number of similar cases that this procedure alone cannot be regarded as an effective remedy in the context of claims brought under Article 2 of the Convention. A civil court is unable to pursue any independent investigation and is incapable, without the benefit of the conclusions of a criminal investigation, of making any meaningful findings regarding the identity of the perpetrators of fatal assaults or disappearances, still less of establishing their responsibility (see Khashiyev and Akayeva v.   Russia , nos.   57942/00 and 57945/00, §§   119-21, 24 February 2005; and Estamirov and Others v. Russia , no.   60272/00, §   77, 12 October 2006). In the light of the above, the Court confirms that the applicants were not obliged to pursue civil remedies. 73.     As regards the criminal-law remedies provided for by the Russian legal system, the Court observes that the applicants complained of Marvan Idalov's kidnapping to the law-enforcement authorities and that an investigation into the incident has been pending since 5 August 2004. The applicants and the Government dispute the effectiveness of this investigation. 74 .     The Court considers that the Government's objection regarding the criminal-law remedies raises issues concerning the effectiveness of the investigation which are closely linked to the merits of the applicants' complaints. Thus it considers that this objection should be joined to the merits and falls to be examined below. IV.     THE COURT'S ASSESSMENT OF THE EVIDENCE AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS A.     The parties' arguments 75.     The applicants maintained that it was beyond reasonable doubt that the men who had taken away Marvan Idalov had been State agents. In support of their complaint they referred to the following facts. The kidnappers had travelled in heavy military vehicles, such as the APC and IBV. They would have had to pass through a military checkpoint to get to the Idalovs' house. The military vehicles had moved in the direction of military unit no.   24. The armed men had Slavic features and spoke unaccented Russian. The applicants asserted that there was no proof that Marvan Idalov had ever been involved in illegal activities. 76.     The Government submitted that there was no evidence that Marvan Idalov had been kidnapped by State agents and that there were therefore no grounds for holding the State liable for the alleged violations of the applicants' rights. They further argued that there was no convincing evidence that the applicants' son was dead. They pointed out that the first applicant had not lodged her first official complaint concerning the abduction until August 2003. At some point the first applicant had informed the investigation that on 22 November 2002 armed men wearing camouflage uniforms and masks travelling in an APC, an IBV and a vehicle fitted with an anti-aircraft gun had entered her house and kidnapped Marvan Idalov. She had not mentioned that the men had been servicemen or ethnic Russians. The Government noted that the first applicant was surprisingly competent as she could easily distinguish an APC from an IBV and knew what an anti-aircraft gun looked like. 77.     According to some villagers, the Idalovs' sons had been insurgents. Vakhid Idalov had been killed in a fight with the federal troops; Alikhan Idalov had gone into hiding in the forests with rebels, had then returned home and at some point had “disappeared”. Hidden firearms and ammunition had been found near the Idalovs' plot of land. The fact that the first applicant had not complained to the Court about the death and disappearance of her two other sons proved, in the Government's view, that the Idalov brothers had participated in illegal armed groups. 78.     The hypothesis of the involvement of State servicemen in Marvan Idalov's kidnapping had not been proved. The missing man could have been kidnapped by insurgents recruiting future rebel fighters. 79.     The Government noted that groups of Ukrainian, Belarusian and ethnic Russian mercenaries had committed crimes in the territory of the Chechen Republic; thus, the fact that the perpetrators had Slavic features and spoke Russian did not prove their attachment to the Russian military. They further observed that a considerable number of weapons and armoured vehicles had been stolen by illegal armed groups from Russian arsenals in the 1990s and that anyone could purchase masks and camouflage uniforms. B.     The Court's evaluation of the facts 1.     General principles 80.     In cases in which there are conflicting accounts of events, the Court is inevitably confronted when establishing the facts with the same difficulties as those faced by any first-instance court. When, as in the instant case, the respondent Government have exclusive access to information able to corroborate or refute the applicants' allegations, any lack of cooperation by the Government without a satisfactory explanation may give rise to the drawing of inferences as to the well-foundedness of the applicant's allegations (see Tanış and Others v. Turkey , no. 65899/01, § 160, ECHR   2005 ‑ VIII). 81.     The Court points out that a number of principles have been developed in its case-law when it is faced with the task of establishing facts on which the parties disagree. As to the facts that are in dispute, the Court reiterates its jurisprudence confirming the standard of proof “beyond reasonable doubt” in its assessment of evidence (see Avşar v. Turkey , no.   25657/94, §   282, ECHR 2001 ‑ VII). Such proof may follow from the coexistence of sufficiently strong, clear and concordant inferences or of similar unrebutted presumptions of fact. In this context, the conduct of the parties when evidence is being obtained has to be taken into account (see Tanış and Others , cited above, §   160). 82.     The Court is sensitive to the subsidiary nature of its role and recognises that it must be cautious in taking on the role of a first-instance tribunal of fact, where this is not rendered unavoidable by the circumstances of a particular case (see, for example, McKerr v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 28883/95, 4 April 2000). Nonetheless, where allegations are made under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention, the Court must apply a particularly thorough scrutiny (see, mutatis mutandis , Ribitsch v. Austria , 4 December 1995, §   32, Series   A no.   336; and Avşar , cited above, § 283) even if certain domestic proceedings and investigations have already taken place. 83.     Where the events in issue lie wholly, or in large part, within the exclusive knowledge of the authorities, such as in cases where persons are under their control in custody, strong presumptions of fact will arise in respect of injuries and death occurring during that detention. Indeed, the burden of proof may be regarded as resting on the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation (see Tomasi v. France , 27 August 1992, §§ 108-11, Series   A no.   241 ‑ A; Ribitsch , cited above, § 34; and Selmouni v. France [GC], no.   25803/94, § 87, ECHR 1999-V). 84.     These principles apply also to cases in which, although it has not been proved that a person has been taken into custody by the authorities, it is possible to establish that he or she entered a place under their control and has not been seen since. In such circumstances, the onus is on the Government to provide a plausible explanation of what happened on the premises and to show that the person concerned was not detained by the authorities, but left the premises without subsequently being deprived of his or her liberty (see Tanış and Others , cited above, § 160). 85.     Lastly, when there have been criminal proceedings in the domestic courts concerning those same allegations, it must be borne in mind that criminal-law liability is distinct from international-law responsibility under the Convention. The Court's competence is confined to the latter. Responsibility under the Convention is based on its own provisions, which are to be interpreted and applied on the basis of the objectives of the Convention and in the light of the relevant principles of international law. The responsibility of a State under the Convention, for the acts of its organs, agents and servants, is not to be confused with the domestic legal issues of individual criminal responsibility under examination in the national criminal courts. The Court is not concerned with reaching any findings as to guilt or innocence in that sense (see Avşar , cited above, §   284). 2.     Establishment of the facts 86.     The Court notes that despite its requests for a copy of the file on the investigation into the abduction of Marvan Idalov, the Government produced only a small part of the documents from the case file. The Government referred to Article 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court observes that in previous cases it has already found this explanation insufficient to justify the withholding of key information requested by the Court (see Imakayeva   v. Russia , no.   7615/02, §   123, ECHR 2006 ‑ XIII). 87.     In view of this, and bearing in mind the principles referred to above, the Court finds that it can draw inferences from the Government's conduct in respect of the well-foundedness of the applicants' allegations. The Court will thus proceed to examine crucial elements in the present case that should be taken into account when deciding whether the applicants' son can be presumed dead and whether his death can be attributed to the authorities. 88.     The applicants alleged that the persons who had taken Marvan Idalov away on 22   November 2002 had been State agents. 89.     The Government suggested in their submission that the persons who had detained Marvan Idalov could have been insurgents wishing to recruit the young man to an illegal armed group. However, this allegation was not specific and they did not submit any material to support it. The Court would stress in this regard that the evaluation of the evidence and the establishment of the facts is a matter for the Court, and it is incumbent on it to decide on the evidentiary value of the documents submitted to it (see Çelikbilek v.   Turkey , no.   27693/95, §   71, 31   May 2005). 90.     The Court considers it very unlikely that several military vehicles stolen by insurgents from the federal troops in the 1990s could have moved freely through Russian military checkpoints without being noticed. It thus finds that the fact that a large group of armed men in uniform travelling in the APC and IBV arrived in the village of Akhkinchu-Borzoy at 6   a.m. on 22   November 2002 strongly supports the applicants' assertion that these were State servicemen conducting a security operation. 91.     The domestic investigation also accepted factual assumptions as presented by the applicants and took steps to check whether law-enforcement agencies or the military had been involved in the kidnapping (see paragraphs 22 and 52 above). 92.     The Court observes that where the applicants make out a prima facie case and the Court is prevented from reaching factual conclusions owing to a lack of documents, it is for the Government to argue conclusively why the documents in question cannot serve to corroborate the allegations made by the applicants, or to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation of how the events in question occurred. The burden of proof is thus shifted to the Government and if they fail in their arguments, issues will arise under Article 2 and/or Article 3 (see Toğcu v. Turkey , no.   27601/95, §   95, 31 May 2005; and Akkum and Others v. Turkey , no.   21894/93, §   211, ECHR 2005 ‑ II). 93.     Taking into account the above elements, the Court is satisfied that the applicants have made a prima facie case that their son was apprehended by State servicemen. The Government's statement that the investigation did not find any evidence to support the involvement of the military or law enforcers in the kidnapping is insufficient to discharge them from the above-mentioned burden of proof. Drawing inferences from the Government's failure to submit the documents which were in their exclusive possession or to provide another plausible explanation of the events in question, the Court considers that Marvan Idalov was apprehended on 22   November 2002 by State servicemen during an unacknowledged security operation. 94.     There has been no reliable news of Marvan Idalov since the date of the kidnapping. His name has not been found in any official detention facilities' records. Lastly, the Government did not submit any explanation as to what had happened to him after his arrest. 95.     Having regard to the previous cases concerning disappearances of persons in the Chechen Republic which have come before the Court (see, among others, Imakayeva , cited above; Luluyev and Others v.   Russia , no.   69480/01, ECHR 2006 ‑ XIII; Baysayeva v.   Russia , no.   74237/01, 5 April 2007; Akhmadova and Sadulayeva v. Russia , cited above; and Alikhadzhiyeva v. Russia , no.   68007/01, 5   July 2007), the Court considers that, in the context of the conflict in the Chechen Republic, when a person is detained by unidentified servicemen without any subsequent acknowledgement of the detention, this can be regarded as life-threatening. The absence of Marvan Idalov or any news of him for almost seven years supports this assumption. 96.     Accordingly, the Court finds that the evidence available permits it to establish that Marvan Idalov must be presumed dead following his unacknowledged detention by State servicemen. V.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 2 OF THE CONVENTION 97.     The applicants complained under Article 2 of the Convention that their relative had disappeared after having been detained by Russian servicemen and that the domestic authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation of the matter. Article 2 reads: “1.     Everyone's right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law. 2.     Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary: (a)     in defence of any person from unlawful violence; (b)     in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained; (c)     in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.” A.     The parties' submissions 98.     The Government contended that the domestic investigation had obtained no evidence to the effect that Marvan Idalov was dead or that any servicemen of the federal law-enforcement agencies had been involved in his kidnapping or alleged killing. The Government claimed that the investigation into the kidnapping of the applicants' relative met the Convention requirement of effectiveness, as all measures envisaged in national law were being taken to identify the perpetrators. The delay in commencing the investigation was attributable to the first applicant as she had officially reported the crime only in August 2003 and not to a prosecutor's office, but to the President's Administration. The first applicant had allegedly mentioned the crime to officials from a prosecutor's office, whom she had seen on the VOVD premises, but their identities remained unknown. Furthermore, the Idalovs had moved out of Akhkinchu-Borzoy and thus impeded the investigation. The first applicant had a right of access to non-confidential case documents. The prosecutors' offices dealing with the case were independent and impartial. 99.     The applicants argued that Marvan Idalov had been detained by State servicemen and should be presumed dead in the absence of any reliable news of him for almost seven years. The applicants also argued that the investigation had not met the requirements of effectiveness and adequacy, as required by the Court's case-law on Article   2 of the Convention. They had verbally informed the authorities of Marvan Idalov's kidnapping immediately after the crime, but had not considered it necessary to lodge written complaints owing to their lack of legal background. In any event, the first written reply to their complaints had been sent by the prosecutor's office of unit no. 20116 on 27 March 2003, which proved that the applicants had complained before that date. The applicants pointed out that the investigating authorities had not tried to establish the owners of the APC and IBV or to question the servicemen of military unit no. 24. The investigation had several times been suspended and then resumed, which illustrated its ineffectiveness. The applicants invited the Court to draw conclusions from the Government's unjustified failure to submit the documents from the case file to them or to the Court. B.     The Court's assessment 1.     Admissibility 100.     The Court considers, in the light of the parties' submissions, that the complaint raises serious issues of fact and law under the Convention, the determination of which requires an examination of the merits. Further, the Court has already found that the Government's objection concerning the alleged non-exhaustion of domestic remedies should be joined to the merits of the complaint (see paragraph 74 above). The complaint under Article   2 of the Convention must therefore be declared admissible. 2.     Merits (a)     The alleged violation of the right to life of Marvan Idalov 101.     The Court reiterates that Article 2, which safeguards the right to life and sets out the circumstances when deprivation of life may be justified, ranks as one of the most fundamental provisions in the Convention, from which no derogation is permitted. In the light of the importance of the protection afforded by Article 2, the Court must subject deprivation of life to the most careful scrutiny, taking into consideration not only the a